Search This Blog

Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

Michigan Legislation For Indigent Defense

In the ongoing saga to fix the indigent defense system, the Michigan State Senate Judiciary Committee is set to take up bills today that would change the current system in Michigan.

Currently, individual judges give flat-rate contracts for indigent defense, which creates issues with the quality of representation (or lack thereof). "Instead of having full-time public defender offices, many counties now control costs with low-bid, flat-fee contracts in which appointed attorneys accept cases for a predetermined fee. That causes a conflict of interest between their duty to competently defend their clients and a financial self-interest to invest less time on cases to maximize profits, according to a 2008 report commissioned by the Legislature."

Under the new legislation, "lawyers’ workloads would be better controlled, and financial incentives or disincentives leading attorneys to short-change defendants 'shall be avoided.'" Additionally, the legislation "would create an independent, permanent state commission to establish standards ensuring effective counsel is given to low-income defendants. Lawyers’ ability, training and experience would have to match the nature and complexity of the case assigned, for example."

Counties are leery of the changes because they still have to pay the costs for indigent defense under the new legislation, and they fear that these changes could create an even greater cost. Note that "Michigan is among just seven states to provide no state funding for trial-level public defense services," and "83 counties spent about $75 million to $80 million in 2009 on criminal defense for the poor, ranking 44th-lowest nationally."

I agree that the current system could use an update, but creating new legislation that compels the counties to act without opening the purse strings may not be the best way. Michigan needs to bite the bullet and become one of the 43 other states that have state-level funding for indigent defense. If the State of Michigan wants a skilled attorney base to represent indigent people, they need to be willing to pay.

The current version of Standard 601(3)(a) was developed during the Comprehensive Review as a method of involving a law library in the process of strategic planning required of a law school. It was envisioned that the planning and assessment taking place for a law school (under what was then Standard 203) would incorporate the work done by the library under this new Standard. To ensure that incorporation, it was decided that a written assessment should be completed by the library. However, when the requirement for strategic planning for a law school was removed during a later phase of the Comprehensive Review, no change was made to the new Standard 601. As a result, the library community has been left…

Law libraries are in the information business. To act as superior guides to this information, we must also be in the people business. We must be concerned with the people who seek our information. And we must be concerned with the people who guide those seekers to the information (i.e., our staff).

Contrary to popular belief, it's not easy to be a staff person in the rigid hierarchy of an academic law library. Particularly at a time when law libraries are facing increased budget pressures that require staff to do much more with much less. This is especially challenging with longtime staff who have seen their jobs change dramatically since they were hired. Many of these folks were not formally trained in librarianship, and they may be resistant to the flexibility needed in today's law library.

Given these challenges, how do we motivate our staff to be the very best guides to our information?

To that end, there was an enlightening program at the AALL Annual Conference in 2013 t…

As we further consider how to train future lawyers for the Algorithmic Society and develop the quality of thinking, listening, relating, collaborating, and learning that will define smartness in this new age, law schools must reach beyond their storied walls.

In law, we must got beyond talking about algorithmic implications to actually help shape algorithmic performance. We need lawyers and programmers to work together to create a sound "machine learning corpus." There's potential for an entirely new subfield to emerge if given the right support. With many law school attached to major research universities, it's a great place to start this cross-pollination and interdisciplinary work.

This type of interdisciplinary work would help to satisfy the career aspirations of advanced-degree seekers but also the wishes of many college presidents, deans, and faculty members who see an interdisciplinary professional education as a path to greater relevance, higher enrollments,…